Paid Parental Leave

     I'm doing my solo presentation over the paid parental leave for families in America. This issue is special to me because when i was a baby, my mom was not able to stay home with me longer than 10 weeks. Her and my dad's financial situation required her to return to work as soon as possible. I can just remember my mom telling me she wished she got a longer time, like six months, to be with me. She explained that it was very hard for her to leave me at daycare all day because i had been with her in her stomach for nine months, and then i was with her the first three months of my life nonstop. She said she had just gotten so close to me and didn't want to leave me. I just think about how something like paid leave would have really helped my parents.
     At that time my mom was the highest earner in between her and my dad, so she really had no choice but to return to work. I also feel like my mother having to back to work early effected my dad negatively as well. I think he wanted to give my mother the opportunity to stay home with me longer, but he knew we could not afford it. Many parents in America suffer from the same issues. The cost of living along with the cost of raising a child has gotten so out of hand. Many moms just choose to stay at home indefinitely because it saves more money in the long run.
     I've done a lot of reading on this subject, and the program would not cost employees a lot of money. In California it costs employees about $30 a year. That amount over the course of one year is not a lot of money, and i think most americans would be happy to give back to the new families in america. We are one of the only developed nations that does not have a program like this for new families, and i think we need it now more than ever.

The other groups

     Since my group had the conclusion chapter, we pretty much summed up what everyone else had to say. I think obesity is one of the biggest problems in america. Sure, we have terrorists out to kill us, but at this rate we're killing ourselves through poor eating habits and lack of exercise. People just aren't as active since the age of technology has progressed.
     I'll walk around campus and see kids riding around on those little hover boards. I hadn't seen them until i came to UNT, but i thought it was completely ridiculous. How do you get any physical activity if you cut the majority of your walking out of your day? When i walk campus for a day of classes i can usually reach my step goal which is 10,000. I can't even imagine cutting that much physical exercise from my day.
     Obesity is a tricky subject though. How do we sensitively tell someone they're "too fat"? what is "too fat"? Some people believe the government should stay out of the physical health issue, but i don't see the private sector fixing the problem. They continue to lure customers in with their sugary, fattening products for pure profit.
     As far as other groups performance goes, you have some groups that did an awesome job of communicating the information, and you have your groups that just stood up there and read straight from the powerpoint slide (personal pet peeve). I wish my powerpoint would have worked because i had a couple of really interesting, visual charts about bmi. I also wish my group would have put in more effort, but this is why they say group assignments suck, right?

Group Presentation: Weighing in

     My group had the conclusion chapter of weighing in. The thing that stood out to me about it the most was the costs of organic foods. So many people including the first family have been advocating for a healthier, organic lifestyle. The huge problem with this is the lack of accessibility of these foods for all classes of americans. The high costs of the organic foods keep americans dependent on the unhealthier food options.
     Many americans are also limited to their environment. In the wealthier parts of America you get the nicer stores, fitness clubs, and the overall status quo of body image and a healthy lifestyle is usually very different than in poorer parts of the country.
     Misleading advertisements also mislead many americans. The most commonly advertised foods are also the most unhealthy. Low price and heavy advertising practically pushes unhealthy food onto many Americans. So not only are the organic food prices too high, cheap, innutritious food is pushed onto us by the advertising companies.
     Many people claim educating the public on issues like eating habits is the path to turning our nation's health around, but many people choose not to be educated. General practitioners inform overweight patients of the risks, info is readily available through books and the internet, but people still choose to buy the cheap, unhealthy foods.

Morality Regarding Artificial Intelligence

   Artificial intelligence programs from movies like Smart House and Her may not be as far off into the future as we may think. Everything is becoming automated. Cars will be driving themselves in not too long from now. People will most likely start automating their homes. Ideally, every one's home intelligence will be the head of household. However, creating intelligence comes with some serious responsibility.
     If something is self thinking and has its own thoughts, ideas, or even emotions, is it morally correct to shut it down if it becomes problematic? Even though a software is not a living breathing thing, it could still have experiences that come along with emotions like we do. We also run the risk of an artificial intelligence outsmarting its programmers. Thus, making it impossible to shut off even if we wanted to. It's a reasonable concern if it is connected to the Internet because the information available is endless on any subject. A program that had endless data gathering properties would be endlessly smarter than its creator due to the way it is programmed.
     Honestly, i don't think artificial intelligence should be created at all. Our world is not ready for that. Many people can hardly keep up with the technology we have today let alone a self-thinking computer program. I don't even know what the purpose of it would be. I can't even think of a use for artificial intelligence, so i think it's best that we just not step into that territory.

Racism

     Racism is a touchy subject that i don't like to discuss with a huge group of people because i feel like i will never really feel the true effects of racism. I will never understand institutionalized racism, racial profiling, and i'll never be told i can't go somewhere or do something because i'm black. As much as i feel like i can sympathize with people that experience racism, but i will never be able to truly empathize with them. Therefore, i feel like i do not have a place in the subject.
     The black lives matter movement is so important because it calls attention to an issue that is being ignored. Police brutality toward minorities is either at an all time high, or people are just now starting to video it. It has gotten completely out of hand. I get offended when people try and negate the movement by stating "all lives matter". Of course, all lives matter, but that is not the issue they're calling attention to. They're saying black lives matter because of all of the murders and police brutality against many black Americans.
     Racism is not something humans are born with. it is taught to us by society. As a child i always thought it was crazy that blacks and whites used to be separated because some of my closest friends were black. I didn't see color at a young age. Prejudice is something that must be taught.
     I don't know that there is a solution to the racist ideal that continues to taint our country, but things like the police brutality is uncalled for, and it can be stopped. We have come a long way in fifty years, but there is still a ways to go.

Sexism

     Someone asked me one time "do you believe you should make the same amount as a man with the same job?". I just remember clearly replying "no". Women still do not receive equality in the workforce today, and there's no question about it. However, i don't want to be paid the same as a man JUST because i'm a female. I want to get paid more because i earned it.
      My mom works for a company in Dallas, and she is the only executive on their board. She has always guided me to never be intimidated in the work place by men. She worked her way from the bottom of the company to an executive position through hard work. A lot of hours in the office, many late nights, and working on weekends go her to where she is. She never complained along the way when her male counterparts got paid slightly more, but i remember the day she came home after their year evaluations. She was so excited because she found out that she would be getting paid $500 more than a male that had the same job as her.
     My mother just inspires me to work as hard as i can, and i can only trust that if i follow her advice,  i'll earn what i deserve because my boss won't be able to ignore my skill set. I don't want to be limited to "making as much as a male", i want to go beyond that.

Virtue Ethics

     Virtue ethics can often be compared to deontology and consequentialism, but it is a little different in the approach. Consequentialists consider lying on a case by case basis, and they believe in lying if the consequence has a better outcome than the truth. Deontologists always think lying is wrong, no matter what. However, people who believe in virtue ethics would necessary focus on the lying at hand, but they would wonder what the decision about lying says about someone's inner moral character. It focuses on the character behind the action to determine morality as opposed to the actions. 
     It talks less about the rules people should follow and focuses more on helping people develop good character traits. If people have good virtues on the inside, then the good actions will follow. Virtue ethicists also emphasize breaking bad habits. Certain virtues are needed in order to be a good person, and once the good virtues are there you become a true good person. 

Deontology

     This was a tricky theory for me to wrap my head around at first. Its not as straightforward as the other ones have been so far. Anyway, deontologists have a sense of duty to do what is right by universal law despite the consequences. They go off of what they ought to do as opposed to what they desire. To determine if something is universal law or not, you have to look into the action you're about to perform, and analyze whether or not you would be okay with others doing this action too. To be universal law you must be okay with others doing the action as well because there are no exceptions to the rules in deontology.
     We used the example in class of lying. Lying is universally considered wrong because if lying were a universal law, society could not function. People would never know if they were being told the truth, and we would assume that everything someone said could be a lie. Instead we usually assume what people say to be true because telling the truth is a universal law that most people follow. Deontologists have a duty to uphold the universal law. In class we used an example of someone whose friend murdered someone, but as a deontologist he was required to give a confession when prompted by police. The person knew his friend would go to jail, but he could not break one of the universal laws. He could not make an exception because that does not exist in a deontologists world. right is right and wrong is wrong.
     I can't say i'm a full on deontologist only because i don't fully understand what universal law is, but i understand that a deontologist's duty to uphold the universal laws is greater than duty to friends or other things. I feel like this theory is slightly vague for me, but maybe a more general theory would work better than something so detailed.

Ethical Egoism

 Okay so, i'm going back to ethical egoism because i never posted about it. Ethical egoism is the idea that a person ought to act out of his/her best interest, always. One thing that stuck out to me on the reading about this one was the line about how ethical egoism endorses selfishness, not foolishness. So excessive drinking, smoking, and other unhealthy crap is frowned upon my the ethical egoist because it does not promote self interest over the long run.

     At first i had some trouble differentiating this from psychological egoism. They're based around selfishness, but the difference is between selfishness opposed to self interest. Psychological egoism states people should always pursue their own interest, but ethical egoism is a normative theory that explains how we ought to behave in our best interests. psychological egoism supports immediate pleasures such as excessive drinking and smoking, and ethical egoism frowns upon things like that. 

     Ethical egoists are not opposed to doing things for others as long as it crosses over into their best interests as well, but it has to benefit them directly. They also do not believe in charity because they see it as rude and intrusive. 

     I definitely don't agree with this, but I've met people who always have a self motive in everything they do. Society wouldn't work properly if everyone thought this way. We rely so much on each other, and if everyone only thought of themselves, people would rarely do anything to help others in need, and we all go through times of need. This kinda comes out of left field, but I also think compassion is ingrained in the human race as a survival method because we cannot survive successfully without companionship and compassion from others.

Utilitarianism

     This is the first moral issue that my philosophy class has discussed that i actually agree with. Obviously it has its flaws, but all in all i probably follow this moral theory more than cultural relativism and psychological egoism. Utilitarians believe in doing what is best for the majority of people. This could be something that has been engraved in my head ever since i was small because all i can ever remember from living in america is "majority rules". Even in pre school our teacher would allow us to vote on the game we played or the movie we watched, and which ever side got the most votes, won.
     We talked about a pretty outrageous example in class, but i think it was necessary in order to point out the black and white guidelines of this theory. We talked about a hostage situation involving a large group of citizens versus a small girl. The utilitarian would be for sacrificing one life to save all of the other lives. People had many different points to disprove this, but i actually agree with it. While i understand that every life is precious and what not, i will never believe that one life is worth like three hundred. Utilitarianism is so valid to me because it proves the point of "you can't satisfy everyone", and I've always found a lot of truth in that statement as it relates to my life.
     I completely appreciate those people that try and please everyone's wants and needs, but I've noticed those people are always the most exhausted because it is simply not possible. The will never be a world where everyone wins, and while there's probably a more morally sound moral theory out there, this just seems like the most realistic and applicable to me.

Psychological Egoism

     Psychological egoism is the idea that humans are incapable of being unselfish. Even when we do something for the good of others, there is still selfish motive behind it no matter what. For example, if i volunteer with my church group to make blankets for the homeless, that act in itself seems unselfish.  However, my religious beliefs associated with that group claim i will go to heaven doing good deeds such as this. So while it feels good to help the homeless, the reason it feels good is entirely selfish because it will hypothetically help me on my path to heaven.
     On days that I feel pessimistic, I would probably agree with this theory. However, today i must disagree. I believe there are definitely completely selfless people out there. I know I've done things for others selflessly. In fact, last weekend my mom went out of town for a few days, and I went by her house twice a day to water the flowers, check the mail, let the dogs out, etc. I didn't necessarily want to drive all the way to my mom's twice a day for three days, but i knew she needed my help, so i did it. We don't always do things for others because it is what we desire more, and that in itself is unselfish.

Ethical Relativism

     The theory of ethical relativism basically explains the ideal that people differentiate what is morally right and wrong by looking to their societal rules. For example, arranged marriages in foreign countries such as India and Pakistan are very common. In the United States we have free choice of marriage. My friends and I would probably freak out on our parents if they tried to arrange a marriage for us. However, Neither culture practice is considered better than the other, they're different but equal. You also cannot deem different cultural customs correct or incorrect from an outsider view because it depends on the customs you grew up around. 

     People obviously obtain certain slang words, traditions, and certain conduct from their surroundings. However, i don't know that I can agree with all aspects of this theory. If we consult our morals solely off of the society we live, this can be flawed. Many people do not think the society they live in fits their standards of morals. I wouldn't say I draw all of my morals from America or Texas. I don't agree with many of the things that are widely accepted in our society, but i definitely follow some of the American norms. 

     I think it is very important to be well rounded in culture, and that's why traveling is so crucial. Any chance I have to travel outside of Texas I take it! It's necessary to understand and appreciate other cultures in order to gather well rounded views of the world. I feel like people have their cultural customs and norms, but i don't know if i believe that directly relates to morality all of the time.